It is often claimed that relativism, subjectivism and nihilism are typically modern philosophical problems that emerge with the breakdown of traditional values, customs and ways of life. The result is the absence of meaning, the lapse of religious faith, and feeling of alienation that is so widespread in modernity.
The Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard (1813-55) gave one of the most penetrating analyses of this complex phenomenon of modernity. But somewhat surprisingly he seeks insight into it not in any modern thinker but rather in an ancient one, the Greek philosopher Socrates.
In this course created by former associate professor at the Søren Kierkegaard Research Centre, Jon Stewart, we will explore how Kierkegaard deals with the problems associated with relativism, the lack of meaning and the undermining of religious faith that are typical of modern life. His penetrating analyses are still highly relevant today and have been seen as insightful for the leading figures of Existentialism, Post-Structuralism and Post-Modernism.

レビュー

JC

The "how this is meaningful to you" message felt a little odd and sometimes a little insulting. Still, a very special thanks to Dr. Stewart and anyone else responsible for sharing this material.

MV

Dec 28, 2015

Filled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled Star

Excellent overview of Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard's own writing, approached on its own, can be nigh-impenetrable but the lectures really help in figuring out how to approach Kierkegaard's writing.

レッスンから

Kierkegaard, Martensen and Hegelianism

Kierkegaard’s understanding of Socrates was of course based on his reading of the texts of Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes, that is, the primary sources. But it was also largely shaped by the interpretation of the famous German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, with whom he was in a constant critical dialogue in The Concept of Irony. Hegel’s philosophy was a highly popular trend at the University of Copenhagen in the late 1830s when Kierkegaard was a student and was writing this work. So this week explores first the presence of Hegel at the university during Kierkegaard’s time, and then Hegel’s analysis of Socrates. This provides the opportunity to revisit and build on the key topics that were introduced in the first lecture: Socratic irony, aporia, the daimon, etc. It is shown how Kierkegaard is inspired and influenced by the important historical role that Hegel ascribes to the person of Socrates. This week also continues the biographical narrative of the young Kierkegaard. It sketches his life as a young student at the University of Copenhagen and his trip to Gilleleje, where he wrote the famous journal entry about seeking a truth for which to live and die. This provides the opportunity to introduce the figure of Hans Lassen Martensen, who was a lifelong rival for Kierkegaard and an important figure in the Danish reception of Hegel’s philosophy.

講師

Jon Stewart, PhD, Dr theol & phil

字幕

[MUSIC] By focusing on the subject, Socrates seemed to be like the Sophists who didn't recognize any absolute or external truth. Instead, they were thought to be relativists, who created an eloquent argument for whatever positions happened to suit their particular contingent interests. According to this view, there was no objective truth beyond the subjective opinions of the individual. But Socrates's key to distinguish himself from the Sophists. He is no relativist, even though he too wants to focus on the importance of the subject. In contrast to the Sophists, for Socrates, there is still an objective truth. But the key is that it must be reached by the individual, by means of rationality and critical reflection. As Hegel puts it, for Socrates, man has this outside within him. The objective truth is not simply to be found in the external sphere around us, but rather also in the minds of each individual. So while the Sophists used critical reflection to justify their own arbitrary, self serving claims. Socrates believes that this tool can be used to reach an objective truth that can be agreed upon by everyone. With Socrates, there's a move from the outward to the inward, but the notion of truth is always maintained. Hegel calls this the unity of the subjective and the objective. The individual must seek the truth of the universal of ethics in him or herself by means of thought and reason. But thought and reason are universals that other rational people can also obtain. In this sense, ethics is also something outward and public. So Hegel claims that there's a unity between the inner universal and the outward universal. While the two can be in contradiction, they can also align and be in agreement. Insofar as the subjective side is also based on rationality, it's not just about one's inward whims or moods. Hegel explains and I quote now, Socrates opposed to the contingent and particular inward, that universals true inward of thought. And Socrates awaken to this real conscience for he, not only said that man is the measure of all things, but man as thinking is the measure of all things. So the Sophist is a relativist since subjectivity means for them the contingency of the individual that is feelings, whims, moods and so forth. But for Socrates, subjectivity inwardness is about thought. And since thought is about universals, it is also something that can connect us with others and with an objective truth. Hegel gives and intriguing interpretation of the daimon of Socrates. He points out that the daimon is different from Socrates' own will and intelligence. It often tells him not to do things that he might otherwise have been inclined to do. Hegel draws the analogy between the daimon which Socrates consulted in important personal manners. And the Oracle at Delphi which the Greeks consulted in important matters of state. Hegel explains however that the difference is that the Oracle is public. That is it's openly available and objective by contrast Socrates daimonic Oracle is inward. It's as if he has within himself, his own personal Oracle that speaks only to him. It was this idea that offended the religious sensibilities of his fellow Athenians. For the Greeks, the laws and customs were sanctioned by the gods. They were not personal or subjective decisions of individuals, rather the individual played no role here whatsoever. Similarly, when a weighty decision had to be made about a course of action, either in one's private affairs or in a matter of state or the community. It was thought that this was not a matter for any private individual to decide. But rather that this was something that only the gods could determine. Thus the Greeks could send an embassy to the Oracle or perform religious ceremonies to determine what the will of the gods was. The idea here is that such things are far too important for any finite individual to decide for them. The Greeks didn't possess what Hegel calls subjective freedom, that is the idea that the individual has the right to decide for him or herself about important matters. It does struck the Greeks as highly arrogant and inappropriate when the specific individual claimed to be able to make such decisions for himself. And when he claimed to have his own personal oracle that no one else could see or hear. This is precisely what Socrates seemed to be doing by asserting the authority of his diamond above traditional law and custom. According to Hegel, Socrates' daimon represents a position midway between the externality of the Oracle and the inwardness of the human mind of the individual. It's a transitional form from objective to subjective morality. On the one hand, the daimon is something inner and not something outer, like the Oracle at Delphi. It's as if the Oracle had been transferred from the objective, external sphere, to the inward sphere of the person of Socrates. This outraged his fellow Athenians, since he seemed thereby to place his own personal opinion above the word of the Oracle. But on the other hand, although the daimon is something inward within him, it's not identical with the will of Socrates himself. The daimon opposes Socrates when he wants to do something that's ill advised. So Socrates' own subjective will leads him in one direction, but the daimon contradicts this, and leads him in another. In this sense, the daimon although something inward in Socrates himself is also something outward and distinct from his will. It's an external authority that corrects his will and advises him about what to do. In this sense, the daimon marks midway point. It's not objectively external like the Oracle nor is it a straightforward of affirmation of his subjective will. According to Hegel, the daimon can be seen as a movement from the external to the internal, but the movement is not yet complete. Socrates represents the great revolution of though that shows the infinite in irreducible value of the subjective. But no revolution begins and ends in a single day. Socrates marked the beginning of it, but the subsequent course of history had to develop it further. Socrates was not yet in a position to present and defend his own private will as the truth. And so he had recourse to the daimon which pointed to the subjective and the inward side of his personality but stopped short of being identical with his will. Only in the modern world have we reached the point where we celebrate the truth and validity of the will of the individual. But it took the course of more than 2,000 years of cultural and historical development after Socrates to reach this point. Socrates only began the revolutionary movement, but he did not finish it. Soren Kierkegaard was interested in Socrates, because the greek philosopher he believed represented something important about modern life. Socrates represented the rights of individuals, against the voice of established custom and tradition. Socrates asked people to question their accepted beliefs, and to look within themselves for the truth. This caused a conflict to arise between Socrates and the Athenian state. It seemed to some that what Socrates was doing was seditious, since by questioning the time honored beliefs and institutions of Athens. He seemed to be undermining its very foundation. This conflict resulted in a trial and condemnation of Socrates in 399 BC. In the concept of irony, Kierkegaard examined the account of this trial in Plato's work, the Apology. Kierkegaard largely draws on Hegel's account of these same events in his lectures on the History of Philosophy, and so it's there that we need to start. In his account of the trial of Socrates, Hegel refers to the historian of philosophy, Wilhelm Gottlieb Tennemann. Who was also one of Kierkegaard's most important sources for ancient philosophy. For Hegel, Tennemann represents the prevailing view of the day. Namely the idea that Socrates was a morally righteous and upstanding person. And that his condemnation was a gross injustice that showed the way in which the rabble or factions can exercise power in democracies. For years, Socrates had been lionized in this manner by scholars sympathetic to him. Hegel finds this view naive, since it fails to understand the important revolutionary role of Socrates in Greek society. The first charge leveled against Socrates is that he didn't honor the national gods of Athens, but instead introduced new gods. This refers to Socrates' claim to have a daimon. To the Greek mind, Socrates was in a sense, claiming to replace the Oracle with his own private self-consciousness. He seemed to be placing his personal opinion and views above that of the god. This was outrageous to the Greeks of the day. The famous saying, know thyself meant for Socrates that each individual must look within him or herself to discover what's true. This implied that one should disregard the traditional public morality that was sanctioned by the gods. This public morality was found in the external sphere since it was accessible to all. Socrates seemed to be denying the validity of this and encouraging the individual to look not outwardly for the truth but inwardly. According to Hegel's view, these were revolutionary ideas. The notion of a personal daimon in contrast to the Oracle, or the gods of the state indeed amounted to the introduction of a new god. Hegel concludes that on this score, Socrates is indeed guilty as charged. The second charge is that Socrates corrupted the youth. This charge refers to the claim that Socrates led the son of a certain Anytus to disobeying him. By telling the son that he was fit for something better than the profession that his father had planned for him. Anytus was a tanner by trade, and this kind of handiwork was regarded as menial labor among the Greeks. Anytus had planned for his son to follow him in this profession, but the son was reluctant to do so. Since with Socrates' encouragement, he felt that being a tanner was beneath him. And that he had talents and intellect that made him suited for much more prestigious jobs. Hegel believes that, based on the testimony, this charge was also well founded. He points out that in Greek society at the time, the bond between parents and their children was something sacred. Obedience to one's parents was among the highest of values. Socrates had undermined this by encouraging Anytus' son. In the idea that he, in his role as an individual with specific gifts and talents was more important than in his role as a son with clearly defined obligations and duties. While in our modern world, we're not offended by Socrates' actions, since we too, value the importance of the individual. In ancient Athens, this was a serious breach of ethics and custom. Today, we too, believe that no one should be forced against one's will into a job or trade that one doesn't want simply because that's what one's family or culture demands. This too was a part of the revolution that Socrates stood for. It placed the individual above established custom and tradition. Hegel also analyzes the final episode of the trial of Socrates where after the defendant is found guilty and given a preliminary sentence. He's able to propose an alternative punishment. This procedure allows the jury to be merciful if they see a degree of contrition on the part of the defendant. By proposing an alternative penalty, the convicted person thereby acknowledges his guilt and recognizes the legitimacy and authority of the court. But Socrates in effect, made sport of the situation by apparently, ironically proposing that he be given free meals. And be supported financially by the state for the public service that he was providing. According to Hegel by doing this, Socrates refuses to acknowledge the validity of the court's decision, and thus his own guilt. Here again, Hegel finds Socrates' position problematic. No state can allow individuals to put themselves above the law or to judge themselves solely based on their own private views in opposition. Or contradiction to established customs, traditions and laws of society. Given this, it's hardly suprising that the Athenians lost their patience with Socrates and stuck with their original sense of the death penalty. When Hegel claims that Socrates was in deed guilty of the charges raised against him. His point isn't that he has no sympathy or understanding for Socrates in the situation. Rather he's saying, that when seen from the historical perspective given the traditions and values of Greek society at the time. The charges against Socrates were well founded. Hegel explains the conflict as follows, I quote, the spirit of the Athenians in itself, its constitution, its whole life rested ona moral ground, on religion. And could not exist without this absolutely secure basis. Thus because Socrates makes the truth rest on the judgement of the inward consciousness. He enters upon a struggle with Athenian people as to what is right and true. So what Socrates was doing was undermining the traditions and public morality and values of this thing. Socrates set off a revolution, that led to the recognition of the individual as something absolute and irreducible. In this sense, he is the forerunner of some of the values that we hold most dear today. But it's natural that from our modern perspective, we find him a sympathetic figure. Hegel reminds us however, that this shouldn't make us lose sight of the radicality of Socretes' message in his own time. Some people might ask why this set of issues that Hegel addresses in connection with his interpretation of Socrates is so important. Perhaps from a purely historical perspective, it's a passing interest to try and see how Hegel understood Socrates and how Kierkegaard understood them both. But what if we're not particularly interested in philosophy for it's own sake. How are these issues relevant for us today? Who really cares about Hegel's concept of subjective freedom or Socrates's undermining of Greek customary values? What fascinated both Hegel and Kierkegaard was that they recognized in this story of Socrates's conflict with Greek society an important forerunner of the problems of modernity. In other words, Socrates' story is not just that of Athens in the 5th century BC, but it's the story of modern existence. In this course, we have online students from all over the world, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Americas, and also here in Europe. We've all grown up in different countries with different languages, customs, religions, and family practices. In addition, you all have grown up in a world that's rapidly changing. And these changes have often led to conflicts in traditional customs and practices. Let me ask each of you to think about this in the context of your own country and culture. Are there for example, controversial issues in your country about the role of the individual and traditional demands of the culture? In many places throughout the world, including here in Europe, there are conflicts about exactly this kind of thing. Some people find it objectionable that young men are obliged to follow in the profession of their fathers, or that women are obliged to cover their hair in public. Or that parents prearrange the marriage of their children, or that certain classes of people are forbidden from doing certain kinds of work. We find it objectionable when people are coerced to follow the crowd when it means acting against their own conscience. It's said that practices of this sort encroach on the freedom of the individual. For Hegel, this is what the concept of subjective freedom is all about. He believes that there is something infinite, something unique and irreducible about each and every individual that should be respected. Each person as an individual should be granted the right to use their rationality to consent to the practices and values that they inherit from their culture. It's also the right of the individual to be able to critically evaluate their inherited culture with their faculty of reason. The birth of subjective freedom was a major turning point in world history. But the revolution of freedom continues to this day, as we try to negotiate the difficult relation between the rights of the individual and the society and tradition. Here, we can see that the issues that Hegel attentive to Socrates are in fact of central importance in our wold today. Kierkegaard took this idea of subjective freedom from Hegel. And developed it in his own way, to a theory of the individual in the context of both society and religion. As was the case with Hegel, Kierkegaard interest in Socrates was not purely or primarily historical. But rather, Socrates was a symbol of the constellation of modern problems that concern freedom, alienation and relativism, the problems of our world today. [SOUND]